JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner [Meenakshi Thakur], Superintendent Grade-II, in the office of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandi, has come up before this Court, seeking the following relief(s) :- “A. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing impugned order/letter dated 20.12.2023 issued by the Disciplinary Authority remitting the matter to another Inquiry Officer for furtherinquiry and report. B. That this Hon’ble Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case may further be pleased to issue certiorari quashing the memorandum dated 21.10.2022 (Annexure P-14) whereby Article of Charges were framed against the petitioner. C. That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to issue writ of mandamus promoting the petitioner to the post of Chief Administrative Officer from the date due i.e. when her DPC was kept in sealed cover with all consequential benefits.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Case of petitioner as set up by Learned Senior Counsel, is that the petitioner joined service as a Clerk-cum-Copyist on 20.02.1991. She was promoted as a Junior Assistant in 1998 and then as Senior Assistant in the year 2007. Petitioner was further promoted as Superintendent Grade-II in the year 2014 and was posted as Reader in the office of Respondent No.2 i.e. Learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi. The next promotional post of petitioner is that of Chief Administrative Officer and though petitioner became eligible w.e.f. 1.04.2023 but she was not considered for promotion by the respondents: (i) Learned Senior Counsel submits that on account of alleged absence of one Sh. Purna Nand, an Orderly [Class-IV] on 04.06.2022 at about 4.00 p.m., the authorities issued a show cause notice to the aforesaid employee, who submitted his reply vide Annexures P-1 and P-2. Keeping in view the reply submitted by aforesaid employee, the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sundernagar [where posted] sought for an explanation from the petitioner on 08.06.2022 [Annexure P-3], which was responded to by the petitioner on the same day on 08.06.2022 [Annexure P-4], upon which Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, submitted a report dated 10.06.2022 [Annexure P-5] to Respondent No. 2-Disciplinary Authority. Based on the report of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sundernagar dated 10.06.2022 [Annexure P-5], Respondent No 2 sought for an explanation from aforesaid Orderly [Sh. Purna Nand], on 17.06.2022 [Annexure P-6], to which he submitted a response on 30.06.2022 [Annexure P-7]. Based on the report of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sundernagar dated 10.06.2022 [Annexure P-5], Respondent No 2 sought for an explanation from aforesaid Orderly [Sh. Purna Nand], on 17.06.2022 [Annexure P-6], to which he submitted a response on 30.06.2022 [Annexure P-7]. (ii) Consequently, Respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority [Learned District and Sessions Judge, Mandi], addressed a communication on 12.07.2022 [Annexure P-8] directing the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sundernagar to conduct a Preliminary -Fact Finding Enquiry in the matter. Accordingly, the Preliminary-Fact Finding was conducted and the Preliminary Report dated 6.9.2022 was submitted to the Respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority. Based on Preliminary-Fact Finding Report, the Respondent No 2-Disciplinary Authority addressed a communication to petitioner on 13.09.2022 [Annexure P-10], seeking her explanation. The petitioner submitted her reply on 20.09.2022 [Annexure P-11] and thereafter, on22.09.2022 [Annexure P-12], Respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against her and with directions to submit a reply within seven days. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted her reply on 24.09.2022 [Annexure P-13], denying the averments contained in the show cause notice. (iii) On 21.10.2022 [Annexure P-14], Respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority, issued a Memorandum [referred to as Charge-Sheet], initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services [Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules 1965 and with further directions to the petitioner to submit a written statement of defence within 10 days and also to state as to whether she desires to be heard in person. (iv) On receipt of the Charge-sheet dated 21.10.2022 [Annexure P-14], the petitioner submitted a written statement of defence to Respondent No 2-Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure P-15, denying the allegations to be incorrect and also requested for a personal hearing and prayed for dropping the proceedings initiated against her. (v) On receipt of reply-written statement of defence vide Annexure P-15 [supra] to Charge-sheet, the Respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority, appointed Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court [POCSO], Mandi as the Inquiry Officer with directions to complete inquiry and to submit the inquiry Report within three months. (vi) The Inquiry Officer [Sh. Pankaj Sharma] initiated the Inquiry on 15.12.2022 [Annexure P-17, Colly] and recorded the statement of 4 PW’s on 03.01.2023 and the statement of PW5 was recorded on 27.02.2023. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer fixed the matter for 13.03.2023 for defence of delinquent employee-petitioner. (vi) The Inquiry Officer [Sh. Pankaj Sharma] initiated the Inquiry on 15.12.2022 [Annexure P-17, Colly] and recorded the statement of 4 PW’s on 03.01.2023 and the statement of PW5 was recorded on 27.02.2023. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer fixed the matter for 13.03.2023 for defence of delinquent employee-petitioner. However, before leading defence, the petitioner requested for some documents from Inquiry Officer, by summoning her ACRs for period from 1992 to 2022 and due to this, the Inquiry was deferred in March 2023 for April 2023 as the requisitioned records were awaited. (vii) Notably, in the month of April 2023, the Inquiry Officer [Sh. Pankaj Sharma] was transferred and another Inquiry Officer [Ms. Sheetal Sharma] was directed to conduct the Inquiry, who continued the proceedings from 24.04.2023 onwards. As per the Zimini Orders dated 02.08.2023, the petitioner- delinquent employee submitted her written statement of defence/arguments to the Inquiry Officer and thereafter, the Inquiry Officer [Ms. Sheetal Sharma], concluded the Inquiry on 04.11.2023 [Annexure P-17, Colly]. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer [Ms. Sheetal Sharma] submitted Inquiry Report dated 22.11.2023 [Annexure P-24, Colly] to Respondent No. 2-Disciplinary Authority. (viii) After receiving the Inquiry Report dated 22.11.2023, Respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority, addressed a letter to the Earlier Inquiry Officer [Mr. Pankaj Sharma, on 20.12.2023 [Annexure P-23], {referred to as Impugned Order} stating that the Inquiry Report was not accepted and the matter was remitted for further inquiry to Earlier Inquiry Officer [Mr. Pankaj Sharma], for conducting further inquiry as per rules, with directions to him to submit the final inquiry report within three months. (ix) Learned Senior Counsel further submits that though the Inquiry Officer {Ms. Sheetal Sharma} had submitted Inquiry Report dated 22.11.2023 to Respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority but, the copy of the said Report was not supplied to her. However, she applied for the said Report under RTI, which was supplied vide communication dated 23.12.2023 [Annexure P-24, Colly] and the same was received by the petitioner on 29.12.2023 i.e. after passing of Impugned order.Learned Senior Counsel, in above factual background, submits that orders dated 20.12.2023 [Annexure P-23] [herein Impugned Order] whereby, the Disciplinary Authority did not accept the Inquiry Report dated 22.11.2023, submitted by Inquiry Officer [Ms. Sheetal Sharma} and in directing the matter for further inquiry to the Earlier Inquiry Officer [Sh. Sheetal Sharma} and in directing the matter for further inquiry to the Earlier Inquiry Officer [Sh. Pankaj Sharma], with directions to him to conduct the inquiry and to submit final report as per rules is to deprive the petitioner of her consideration and resultant promotion as Chief Administrative Officer for which she is eligible. It is also asserted that the Impugned Order has been passed in an unfair, unjust, illegal manner and in violation of the CCS [CCA] Rules and in contravention of Articles 14 and16 of the Constitution of India. INTERIM ORDER IN INSTANT PROCEEDINGS: 3. Upon listing of the instant petition, this Court issued notice to respondents on 09.01.2024, directing them to file reply. However, in the interim, this Court passed an order that further inquiry pursuant to Annexure P-23 dated 20.12.2023, shall remain stayed till further orders. STAND OF RESPONDENT No 1 IN INSTANT PROCEEDINGS: 4. Pursuant to issuance of notice, Respondent No 1, filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 27.05.2024, with the averments that the post of Chief Administrative Officer is a promotional post, which is to be filled by selection in terms of the Himachal Pradesh District Judiciary Staff [Recruitment, Promotion, Control, Conduct, Discipline & Other Conditions of Service] Rules 2022. Reply-affidavit indicates that in view of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held on 26.04.2023, wherein, the second senior-most Superintendent Grade-II, namely Smt. Meera Devi, was promoted as Chief Administrative Officer on adhoc basis. Reply-affidavit further stated that the recommendations in case of the petitioner [Meenakshi Thakur], were kept in sealed cover. As far as the passing of the Impugned Order dated 20.12.2023 [Annexure P-23], is concerned, the Respondent No. 1 stated that the matter relates to Respondents No.2 & 3. STAND OF RESPONDENTS No 2 IN INSTANT PROCEEDINGS: 5. The Respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority [District and Sessions Judge, Mandi], filed a separate reply-affidavit dated 09.06.2024. A perusal of the Reply-Affidavit indicates that the Impugned Order dated 20.12.2023 [Annexure P-23] was passed in view of the fact that the Inquiry Report furnished by Inquiry Officer was not accepted and reason(s) of disagreement were mentioned in Impugned Order; and with the plea that the new Inquiry Officer [Pankaj Sharma] who recorded the statements of PW’s earlier has been directed to hold further inquiry as per rules. It is averred in the Reply-Affidavit that Impugned Order has been passed for ascertaining the truth in instant case. In above background, prayer has been made for dismissing the writ petition. REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER: 6. Petitioner had filed two separate rejoinders on Affidavit dated 14.06.2024, denying the averments contained in respective replies. Rejoinders-affidavits specifically indicate that no reasons have been assigned by Disciplinary Authority while passing the order dated 20.12.2023 [Annexure P-23]. It is averred that merely because Earlier Inquiry Officer [Sh. Pankaj Sharma] had recorded statements of PWs then, this cannot be the basis for not accepting the Inquiry Report dated 22.11.2023 which was duly submitted by Inquiry Officer [Ms. Sheetal Sharma], as per rules, in which the charges were not proved against the petitioner. 7. Heard, Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Abhinav M. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Devender Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. 8. Based on the pleadings on record, the following question arises for determination in the instant petition:- Whether the Impugned Order dated 20.12.2023 [Annexure P-23], in not accepting the Inquiry Report and in ordering further Inquiry could have been passed by the Respondent No 2-Disciplinary Authority, dehors the intent and object of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 15 of CCS [CCA] Rules, and effect thereof? STATUTORY RULES INVOLVED: 9. Before analyzing the claim of the petitioner, it is necessary to have a recap of the statutory provisions of Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services [Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules 1965, as applicable in the instant case, as under :- “Rule 15. Action on inquiry report (1) The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14, as far as may be. (2) The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority, a copy of the report of the inquiring authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of inquiring authority on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favorable or not to the Government servant. (3) ….not relevant… (4) The Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation under sub rule (2) and/or clause (b) of sub-rule (3), if any, submitted by the Government servant and record its findings before proceedings further in the matter as specified in sub-rules (5) and (6). (5) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty. (6) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the Government servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed.” IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT No 2-DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY ON 20.12.2023 [ANNEXURE P-23]: 10. In order to appreciate the claim of the petitioner vis-a-vis rival contentions of respondents, it is necessary to have an outlay of the Impugned Order dated 20.12.2023 [Annexure P-23], passed by Respondent No 2-Disciplinary Authority in not accepting the Inquiry Report and in remitting the matter for further Inquiry to the Earlier Inquiry Officer with directions to aforesaid inquiry officer to conduct further inquiry and to submit the final report, in the following terms :- [Annexure P-23] Confidential No.DJ-R(Chargesheet)/MND/2023-OFFICE OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MANDI, CIVIL AND SESSIONS DIVISION MANDI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH Dated Mandi, the 20th December, 2023 To Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. Subject: Inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Sir, This is to inform you that since you were appointed as Inquiry officer vide this office order No.DJ-R(Charge-sheet)/MND/ 2022-3076, dated 1st December, 2022, to inquire into the charges framed against Smt. Meenakshi Thakur, Superintendent Grade-II, office of the Principal Judge, Family Court Mandi and being Inquiry officer, you had recorded the statements of all witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-5, in the said inquiry, as per record. However, the inquiry report as submitted by the earlier Inquiry officer has not been accepted. Therefore, the undersigned being Disciplinary Authority, is of the view that your report in this inquiry is essential for the just decision of this inquiry, hence, the inquiry in original alongwith record is enclosed herewith to hold the further inquiry as per Rules and the final report be submitted within3 months to this office. Yours sincerely Sd/- (Disciplinary Authority) District and Sessions Judge Mandi, Civil and Sessions Division Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. Encls : As above. Endst.No.DJ-R(Chargesheet)/MND/2023- Dated Mandi, the 20th December, 2023. Copy forwarded to Smt. Meenakshi Thakur, Superintendent Grade-II, office of the Principal Judge, Family Court Mandi, for information. Sd/- (Disciplinary Authority) District and Sessions Judge Mandi, Civil and Sessions Division Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.” UNDISPUTED FACTS LEADING TO PASSING OF IMPUGNED ORDER: 11. Respondent No 2-Disciplinary Authority issued a Memorandum-Charge-Sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS [CCA] Rules, for initiating regular departmental proceedings against the petitioner on 21.10.2022 [Annexure P-14], leveling allegation(s) with respect to the alleged absence of one Sh. Respondent No 2-Disciplinary Authority issued a Memorandum-Charge-Sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS [CCA] Rules, for initiating regular departmental proceedings against the petitioner on 21.10.2022 [Annexure P-14], leveling allegation(s) with respect to the alleged absence of one Sh. Purna Nand, an Orderly, on 04.06.2022 at about 4:00 p.m. The petitioner submitted her written statement of defence vide Annexure P-15, denying the allegations and requested for a personal hearing with further prayer to drop the proceedings initiated against her. On receipt of written statement of defence vide Annexure P-15, the Respondent No. 2-Disciplinary Authority appointed one Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court [POCSO], Mandi, as the Inquiry Officer. This Inquiry Officer commenced the inquiry from 15.12.2022 [Annexure P-17] and during inquiry, recorded the statement of 4-PW’s on 3.1.2023 and the statement of PW-5 was recorded on 27.02.2023 through video conferencing. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer sent the recorded statement of PW-5 for signatures and the same was received back on 17.03.2023. Though the Inquiry Officer had directed the petitioner to submit her defence but in order to defend herself, since the petitioner required some documents therefore, she requested the inquiry officer to summon her ACRs. However, in April 2023, the Inquiry Officer [Sh. Pankaj Sharma] was transferred and another Inquiry Officer [Ms. Sheetal Sharma] was appointed, who continued the departmental Inquiry from 24.04.2023 onwards, by taking on record the written statement of defence of the petitioner on02.08.2023. The Inquiry Officer [Ms. Sheetal Sharma] concluded the departmental inquiry on 04.11.2023 and submitted the Inquiry Report dated 22.11.2023 [Annexure P-24, Colly], to Respondent No 2-Disciplinary Authority, with the findings that the charge was not proved against the petitioner. However, on receipt of Inquiry Report, the Respondent No 2-Disciplinary Authority passed the Impugned Order on 20.12.2023 [Annexure P-23] ; in not accepting the Inquiry Report and in remitting the matter for further inquiry to the Earlier Inquiry Officer [Sh Pankaj Sharma], who conducted the inquiry before his transfer and with directions to him to conduct the inquiry and to submit the Final Inquiry Report within three months. ANALYSIS: 12. ANALYSIS: 12. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record and the submissions made by Learned Counsels, this Court is of the considered view, that the Impugned Order dated 20.12.2023 [Annexure P-23], passed by the Respondent No 2-Disciplinary Authority ; in not accepting the Inquiry Report dated 22.11.2023 [Annexure P-24, colly] submitted by Inquiry Officer [Ms. Sheetal Sharma] ; with directions to remit the matter to Earlier Inquiry Officer [Sh. Pankaj Sharma] for further inquiry ; with directions to him to conduct the inquiry and to submit the Final Report within three months ; does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny, for the following reasons:- PREFACE TO RULE 15 OF CCS (CCA) RULES (i) Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, prescribes the action to be taken by disciplinary authority on receipt of inquiry report. Rule 15 provides that on receipt of Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority has two recourses : firstly, as per sub rule (1) of Rule 15 to remit the matter for further inquiry under Rule 14 of these rules after recording reasons in writing and that too after being satisfied that the inquiry already conducted suffered from any technical or procedural defect or infraction or non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Rule 14 or the law which may result in prejudice ; and secondly, as per sub rule (2) of Rule 15, the Disciplinary Authority can resort to “non-acceptance of inquiry report” and in such an eventuality, the Disciplinary Authority is bound to record its tentative reasons of disagreement in relation to the findings contained in the inquiry report and also to furnish such tentative reasons of disagreement to the delinquent employee, who shall be afforded an opportunity to submit a representation against tentative reasons of disagreement before proceeding further in the matter. INTENT AND SPIRIT OF SUB RULE (1) OF RULE 15 OF CCS (CCA) RULES : (ii) The provision of sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of the CCS [CCA] Rules, has a definite intent object and purpose. After receipt of Inquiry Report though the Respondent No 2-Discipinary Authority has been vested with the power to remit the matter for further inquiry but at the same time, this power was not unbridled, uncanalised and limitless. Such a power cannot be exercised at the mere liking or whims of the Disciplinary Authority. After receipt of Inquiry Report though the Respondent No 2-Discipinary Authority has been vested with the power to remit the matter for further inquiry but at the same time, this power was not unbridled, uncanalised and limitless. Such a power cannot be exercised at the mere liking or whims of the Disciplinary Authority. In order to prevent its misuse, the rule making authority was cautious enough, by prescribing the twin preconditions-safeguards, which were to act as caveat, in case, any Disciplinary Authority made any attempt to misuse this provision. With this intent, sub rule (1) of Rule 15 mandated that a Disciplinary Authority can pass an order to “remit the matter” for “further inquiry” [in relation to an inquiry already conducted, in which inquiry report was submitted in which the charges were not proved], primarily on fulfilment of twin preconditions i.e. firstly, “after recording reasons in writing” and secondly, such reasons should invariably originate from any defect (technical or procedural) or any infraction or non-compliance of Rule 14 of Rules necessitating an order to remit the matter for further inquiry, so as prevent any prejudice to a party, during the course of an earlier inquiry. IMPUGNED ORDER VITIATED DUE TO NON-RECORDING OF REASONS: (iii) In the overview of the intent of the rule making authority as detailed herein and in facts of this case, the Impugned Orders passed by the Respondent No 2-Disciplinary Authority on 20.12.2023, Annexure P-23, in not accepting the Inquiry Report dated 22.11.2023, Annexure P-24, and in remitting the matter for further inquiry, without recording any reasons in writing is violative of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules. Non- recording of reasons, as mandated by rule, vitiates the Impugned order dated 20.12.2023 [Annexure P-23]. NON-COMPLIANCE OF TWIN SAFEGUARDS IN SUB RULE (1) OF RULE 15 OF CCS (CCA)RULES VITIATES ORDER: (iv) The provision of sub rule (1) of Rule 15 enables a Disciplinary Authority to “remit the matter” for “further inquiry” so as to conduct inquiry under Rule 14” of the CCS (CCA) Rules. NON-COMPLIANCE OF TWIN SAFEGUARDS IN SUB RULE (1) OF RULE 15 OF CCS (CCA)RULES VITIATES ORDER: (iv) The provision of sub rule (1) of Rule 15 enables a Disciplinary Authority to “remit the matter” for “further inquiry” so as to conduct inquiry under Rule 14” of the CCS (CCA) Rules. In order to prevent misuse of this provision by a Disciplinary Authority, the rule making authority was cautious enough to provide the twin pre-conditions-safeguards before invoking this provision by satisfying itself as to whether the earlier inquiry suffered from a defect (technical or procedural) or any infraction or non-compliance of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules and/or the law, which has caused prejudice to a party to the proceedings and based on this to further satisfy itself as to whether any defect or infraction or non-compliance necessitated any order to remit the matter for further inquiry or not. In case, any such shortcoming existed then, only, the Disciplinary Authority was bound to disclose reasons (though illustratively only) and then to pass an order to “remit the matter for further inquiry under Rule 14” of said rules. In the instant case, the Impugned order 20.12.2023 [Annexure P-23], does not contain any whisper as to whether the twin preconditions or safeguards in Sub Rule (1) of Rule 15 were satisfied or not. Nothing has been spelt out in impugned order pointing out any shortcoming or any defect (technical or procedural) or any infraction or non- compliance of Rule 14 of Rules governing inquiries. Absence of any instances revealing any defect or infraction or non-compliance of Rule 14 during earlier inquiry, leads to the conclusion that the Disciplinary Authority had eschewed the “relevant considerations and has ignored the fulfillment of twin safeguards in sub rule (1) of Rule 15” and in these circumstances, the Impugned order dated 20.12.2023, Annexure P-23, does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny and same deserves to be set-aside. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. NON RECORDING REASONS HAS PREJUDICED PETITIONER : (v) Non-recording of reasons by the Disciplinary Authority before passing the impugned orders on 20.12.2023 and in remitting the matter for further inquiry has prejudiced the petitioner by depriving her of the right to know the grounds and basis as to why and on what basis the earlier inquiry suffered from any defect or infraction or non- compliance of rule 14 and moreover, when, in the Inquiry report dated 22.11.2023, the charges were not proved against the petitioner-delinquent official, in the instant case. RECORDING REASONS TO ENSURE FAIRNESS AND ERADICATION OF NON-ARBITRARINESS IN ACTION : VIOLATED (vi) The Disciplinary Authority under the CCS (CCA) Rules is a statutory authority. Once Sub- Rule (1) of Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, casts an obligation on the Disciplinary Authority that after receipt of inquiry report, Disciplinary Authority, can after recording reasons remit the matter for further inquiry under Rule 14 of the said rule. The necessity for recording reasons before remitting the matter for further inquiry is to ensure fairness, reasonableness and to obviate any arbitrariness in action. Necessity to record reasons becomes all the more mandatory when, rights of a delinquent are sought to be or are actually prejudiced. On facts, once the petitioner had faced departmental inquiry under Rule 14 which as per the petitioner was conducted as per norms leading to Inquiry Report dated 22.11.2023, Annexure P-24, in which the charges were not proved against the petitioner therefore, in such a situation, the Disciplinary Authority could not have passed the Impugned order on 20.12.2023, in not accepting the Inquiry report and in ordering further inquiry “but without recording reasons.” Overturning the existing position (i.e. the inquiry conducted and the inquiry report in which the charges were not proved) without recording reasons and also without spelling out any shortcoming or defect (technical or procedural) or any infraction or non-compliance of Rule 14 in the disciplinary authority cannot be permitted to completely set at naught the earlier inquiry and the earlier report arbitrarily as has been done in the instant case. Thus, the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 turns out to be legally infirm requiring interference, in the instant case. ORDER OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO BE TESTED ON ITS FACE VALUE AND NOT ON REASONS IN AFFADAVITS: 13. Thus, the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 turns out to be legally infirm requiring interference, in the instant case. ORDER OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO BE TESTED ON ITS FACE VALUE AND NOT ON REASONS IN AFFADAVITS: 13. Validity of an order has to be tested on its face value and not on the basis of averments contained in Affidavit(s) whereby a party to the lis tends to supplementing reasons. After the receipt of Inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority, being a Statutory Authority was bound to examine the report and only in case of fulfilment of the twin pre-conditions-safeguards, as discussed above, that the Disciplinary Authority could pass an order to remit the matter for further inquiry under sub rule (1) of Rule 15. Disciplinary Authority cannot be permitted to improve its stand by supplementing reasons by way of affidavit as per the mandate of law of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill versus Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC405, in the following terms:- “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji: “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji: “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” (i) Following the mandate of law, in Mohinder Singh Gill’s case supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated in the case of Dipak Babaria vs. State of Gujarat, (2014) 3 SCC 502 , that the statutory authority-State has to defend its action on the basis of the order it had passed and not by improving the stand by filing subsequent affidavits, in the following terms:- 64. That apart it has to be examined whether the Government had given sufficient reasons for the order it passed, at the time of passing such order. The Government must defend its action on the basis of the order that it has passed, and it cannot improve its stand by filing subsequent affidavits as laid down by this Court long back in Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 in the following words:- "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." This proposition has been quoted with approval in paragraph by a Constitution Bench in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, 1978 (1) SCC 405 wherein Krishna Iyer, J. has stated as follows:- "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out." 64. In this context it must be noted that the Revenue Minister’s direction merely states that it is a private land, and the Governments letter dated 18.12.2009 speaks of the financial incapability of Inidgold. Neither the letter dated 18.12.2009 from the Government to the Collector, nor the order passed by the Deputy Collector on 15.1.2010 mention anything about: 1. the mineral policy of the Government of Gujarat. 2. the time taking nature of the process of acquiring the land and re- allotting it. 3. That the second sale was under the authority of the Collector available to him under the first proviso to Section 89(1) read with condition no. (4) of the permission dated 1.5.2003 granted to Indigold to purchase the concerned lands. In the absence of any of these factors being mentioned in the previous orders, it is clear that they are being pressed into service as an after-thought. The Government cannot be allowed to improve its stand in such a manner with the aid of affidavits. In the backdrop of the factual matrix and the mandate of law of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Dipak Babaria, this Court is of the considered view that in the Impugned Order dated 20.12.2023 vide Annexure P-23, there is neither any whisper nor any iota of narration revealing any defect (technical or procedural) or any infraction or non-compliance of rule 14 and/ or law, during the course of inquiry which necessitated further inquiry in the matter. Nothing is borne out from the impugned order as to what prompted the Disciplinary Authority not to accept the inquiry report or to remit the matter for further inquiry in fact-situation of instant case. Nothing is borne out from the impugned order as to what prompted the Disciplinary Authority not to accept the inquiry report or to remit the matter for further inquiry in fact-situation of instant case. Absence of minimum disclosure of any defect or infraction or non-compliance of rules in inquiry already held and in withholding reasons in the impugned order goes on to infer unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the action and also the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority concerned in instant case. (ii) At the insistence of Learned Counsel for the Respondents, a feeble attempt has been made by the Disciplinary Authority to defend the impugned order on the basis of averments in reply/affidavit. In the teeth of the mandate of law in case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Dipak Babaria (supra), this Court hesitatingly peruses the Reply-Affidavit. Even after scanning the reply-affidavit, it transpires that a complete go-by has been given to the twin preconditions-safeguards of sub rule (1) of Rule 15. Reply-Affidavit does not point out any defect or infraction or infirmity or non-compliance of the rules and even does not indicate any instance or stage from which, the defect or infraction or non-compliance of rules had crept in during earlier inquiry. In absence of any narration thereof, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order negativating the Inquiry Report in which charges were not proved could not have been brushed aside by the Disciplinary Authority in a mechanical, slip shod and unfair manner by “ignoring the relevant considerations as discussed hereinabove”. Thus, the impugned order cannot be permitted to operate against the petitioner in instant form, and accordingly, this order is interfered with and interdicted by this Court. STATUTORY ORDER TO BE PASSED IN MANNER PRESCRIBED: 14. Once sub rule (1) of Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, prescribed the mode and manner for doing a thing or for performing an act then, such an act has to be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other manner or not at all, in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meera Sahni vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 177 , in the following terms:- 35. Governor Of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 177 , in the following terms:- 35. It is by now a certain law that an action to be taken in a particular manner as provided by a statue, must be taken, done or performed in the manner prescribed and in no other manner. In this connection we may appropriately refer to the decision of this Court in Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala, (1999) 3 SCC 422 , wherein it was held as under: 31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor who stated as under: "Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all." 32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan. These cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case (supra) was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Gopaldas Bhagwan Das and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 3636 of 2016 dated 4.2.2020. In the above backdrop, once Respondent No 2-Disciplinary Authority, being a statutory authority under the CCS (CCA) Rules, was vested with the power, authority and discretion to remit the matter for further inquiry, subject to the fulfilment of twin preconditions/safeguards i.e. in case the inquiry already conducted suffered from any defect (technical or procedural) or infraction or non-compliance of Rule 14 and by briefly spelling out such infirmity or infraction indicating application of mind to the relevant-germane considerations as required under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 15 and too that in the context of twin preconditions/safeguards supported with reasons before invoking such provision. In the instant case, once the Disciplinary Authority has failed to perform its statutory obligations, revealing due and proper application of mind to “relevant considerations” then, absence of such compliance is a good, valid and sufficient ground to interdict the impugned order dated 20.12.2023, Annexure P-23, in instant case. DENOVO INQUIRY IN THE GARB OF FURTHER INQUIRY IMPERMISSIBLE: 15. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules only contemplates “further inquiry”. In order to remit the case for further inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has to satisfy itself as to whether the earlier inquiry suffered from any defect (technical or procedural) or infraction of any rule governing inquiry. Violation or infraction of Rule 14 or the principles of natural justice is prerequisite and is a sine qua non for passing an order to remit the matter for further inquiry.In the present case, once the impugned order does not reveal any inherent infraction or violation of Rule 14 or the principles of natural justice and/or law, then, impugned order remitting the case for further inquiry tantamounts to de-novo inquiry in the garb of further inquiry cannot be permitted to stand the test of judicial scrutiny and therefore, the Impugned Order dated 20.12.2023 [Annexure P-23], is not sustainable: (i) While outlining that the second or denovo inquiry is permissible if the inquiry conducted is bad in law, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further mandated in Nand Kumar Verma vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2012) 3 SCC 580 , that in the absence of any technical or procedural infirmity, a competent forum cannot order further or de novo or second inquiry, in the following terms:- “26. In our opinion, having accepted the explanations and having communicated the same to the appellant, the High Court could not have proceeded to pass the order of initiating departmental proceedings and reverting the appellant from the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate to the post of Munsif. On general principles, there can be only one enquiry in respect of a charge for a particular misconduct and that is also what the rules usually provide. If, for some technical or other good ground, procedural or otherwise, the first enquiry or punishment or exoneration is found bad in law, there is no principle that a second enquiry cannot be initiated. If, for some technical or other good ground, procedural or otherwise, the first enquiry or punishment or exoneration is found bad in law, there is no principle that a second enquiry cannot be initiated. Therefore, when a completed enquiry proceedings is set aside by a competent forum on a technical or on the ground of procedural infirmity, fresh proceedings on the same charges is permissible.” Thus, in facts of instant case, once the Respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority has not spelt out anything that the Inquiry already conducted and Inquiry Report was bad in law and/or suffered from any defect (technical or procedural) or there was any infraction or non-compliance of Rule 14 and/or law therefore, in the absence of these pre-requisites, the Impugned Order directing further-denovo-fresh- second Inquiry in violation of the intent and spirit of sub rule (1) of Rule 15 and the law amounts to abuse of discretion by the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, the Impugned Order is not tenable. EARLIER INQUIRY REPORT NOT TO LIKING OF DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY NOT GROUND TO ORDER FURTHER INQUIRY BY INVOKING SUB RULE (1) OF RULE 15: 16. Perusal of Impugned Order dated 20.12.2023 [Annexure P-23], reveals that the Respondent No.2- Disciplinary Authority did not accept the Inquiry Report dated 22.11.2023 [Annexure P-24] submitted by Inquiry Officer [Ms. Sheetal Sharma], on the plea that further inquiry needs to be conducted by Earlier Inquiry Officer [Mr. Pankaj Sharma] who had recorded the statement of PWs for a just decision of the inquiry. The above stand of the Respondent No 2-Disciplinary Authority does not conform to rationale and logic, for the reason, that once nothing is borne out from impugned order that the inquiry earlier conducted suffered from any defect (technical or procedural) or any infraction or non-compliance of Rule 14 governing such inquiry then, the action of Respondent No 2-Disciplinary Authority in passing impugned order intending to fill up the lacunae in evidence and with a view to seek a fresh report or second report which may be different from the findings contained in the earlier inquiry report dated 22.11.2023 is impermissible. Even, if the earlier report was not to the liking of Disciplinary Authority {despite that nothing existed showing any infraction or non-compliance or defect in the inquiry}, then also, the impugned order passed by ignoring the relevant preconditions/safeguards under sub rule (1) of Rule 15, vitiates the impugned order, in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.R. Deb vs. The Collector of Central Excise Shillong, 1971 (2) SCC 102 , in the following terms:- “12. It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under Rule 9.” (i) In the absence of any whisper in the impugned order pointing out any infirmity or illegality in the inquiry and the Inquiry Report, the Impugned Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in not accepting the Inquiry Report and in remitting the matter for further inquiry, is contrary to the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Union of India & Ors. vs. P. Thayagarajan, (1991) 1 SCC 733, in following terms :- “8. A careful reading of this passage will make it clear that this Court notices that if in a particular case where there has been no proper enquiry because of some serious defect having crept into the enquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the enquiry or were not examined, the disciplinary authority may ask the enquiry officer to record further evidence but that provision would not enable the disciplinary authority to set aside the previous enquiries on the ground that the report of the enquiry officer does not appeal to the disciplinary authority. In the present case, the basis upon which the disciplinary authority set aside the enquiry is that the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer was contrary to the relevant rules and affects the rights of the parties and not that the report does not appeal to him. When important evidence, either to be relied upon by the Department or by the delinquent official, is shut out, this would not result in any advancement of any justice but on the other hand, result in a miscarriage thereof. Therefore we are of the view that the Rule 27(c) enables the disciplinary authority to record his findings on the report and to cast an appropriate order including ordering a de novo enquiry in a case of the present nature." In above backdrop, the passing of the Impugned order certainly leads to miscarriage of justice, causing prejudice to the petitioner, in facts of instant case. INFERENCE OF SUSPICION VITIATES IMPUGNED ORDER OF FURTHER INQUIRY: 17. Impugned order dated 20.12.2023, Annexure P-23, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, states that further inquiry may be conducted by the Earlier Inquiry Officer [Mr. Pankaj Sharma] as he had recorded the statements of witnesses. Before analyzing this aspect, it is pertinent to note that the Earlier Inquiry Officer [Mr. Pankaj Sharma] conducted the inquiry from 15.12.2023 till April 2023. After his transfer, another Inquiry Officer [Ms. Sheetal Sharma], who continued/conducted the inquiry from April 2023 till she submitted the Inquiry Report on 22.11.2023. It is relevant to note that once the later Inquiry Officer [Ms Sheetal Sharma], continued /conducted the left over inquiry and submitted the Inquiry report on 22.11.2023 and she was still available and with added facts that there was no whisper in the impugned order that the inquiry conducted by the later Inquiry officer suffered from any defect (technical or procedural) or any infraction or non-compliance of Rule 14 and/or the law causing prejudice. Thus, impugned order passed by the Respondent No 2-Disciplinary Authority on 22.11.2023 directing the earlier Inquiry Officer [Mr. Pankaj Sharma] to conduct inquiry and to submit Fresh Report when, later Inquiry Officer [Ms. Sheetal Sharma] was available and was not incapacitated to conduct inquiry. These circumstances, are good enough to infer suspicion leading to malice in law on the part of Disciplinary Authority who was determined to get the denovo Inquiry Report from the Earlier Inquiry Officer suitable to him. Sheetal Sharma] was available and was not incapacitated to conduct inquiry. These circumstances, are good enough to infer suspicion leading to malice in law on the part of Disciplinary Authority who was determined to get the denovo Inquiry Report from the Earlier Inquiry Officer suitable to him. The order so passed by ignoring the relevant considerations leading to malice in law cannot be permitted to operate against the petitioner, in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.R. Deb’s case [supra], in the following terms :- “14. Before the Judicial Commissioner the point was put slightly differently and it was urged that the proceedings showed that the Disciplinary Authority had made up its mind to dismiss the appellant. The Judicial Commissioner held that on the facts it could not be said that the Disciplinary Authority was prejudiced against the appellant. But it seems to us that on the material on record a suspicion does arise that the Collector was determined to get some Inquiry Officer to report against the appellant.” (i) Once Disciplinary Authority has not pointed out the stage from which the Inquiry Report dated 22.11.2023 submitted by Inquiry Officer was bad in law then, such a tendency has been deprecated in Union of India & Anr. vs. S.K. Verma, 2018 SCC Online Del 7760, in the following terms :- “15. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that such a procedure cannot be termed as a 'further inquiry' but for all effect and purposes, a fresh inquiry or a de novo inquiry as a 'further inquiry' is required to be held from the stage at which any infirmity in the procedure would have crept in, which is not the case herein. Even such a 'further inquiry' has to be done by the same Inquiry Officer unless and until the said Inquiry Officer is unavailable or incapacitated to conduct the entire inquiry. The CCS (CCA) learned Tribunal cannot be faulted in holding that under Rule 15(1) of the CCS Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority may remit the case to the same Inquiry Officer and not to a new Inquiry Officer.” The Impugned Order directing further Inquiry to be conducted by the Earlier Inquiry Officer [Mr. The CCS (CCA) learned Tribunal cannot be faulted in holding that under Rule 15(1) of the CCS Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority may remit the case to the same Inquiry Officer and not to a new Inquiry Officer.” The Impugned Order directing further Inquiry to be conducted by the Earlier Inquiry Officer [Mr. Pankaj Sharma], without pointing out the stage from which the Earlier Inquiry was vitiated is good enough to infer that non-germane and alien considerations have weighed with the Disciplinary Authority, while passing the impugned orders, which cannot be permitted to operate, so as to cause prejudice to the petitioner, at this stage, by making her to undergo denovo-second inquiry in the absence of any infirmity have been pointed out in the earlier inquiry while passing the impugned orders. NON-ACCEPTANCE OF INQUIRY REPORT AND NOT FURNISHING OF TENTATIVE REASONS OF DISAGREEMENT VITIATES IMPUNGED ORDER: 18. Notably, the mandate of sub rule (2) of Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, prescribes that if Inquiry Report is not accepted and the Disciplinary Authority decides to disagree with the findings in inquiry report then, in such an eventuality, the disciplinary authority is bound to furnish its tentative reasons of disagreement alongwith Inquiry report to delinquent employee and also to give an opportunity to said employee to make representation against such tentative reasons of disagreement before proceeding further in the matter.Perusal of impugned order itself states that the inquiry report has not been accepted. It is stated in Para 19 of Reply Affidavit that the reasons of disagreement have been mentioned in the letter dated 20.12.2023. Scanning of the letter dated 20.12.2023, Annexure A-23, which is the Impugned order herein, reveals that this order on the face of it, suffers from grave illegality; for the reason that this letter/impugned order does not spell out any defect or infirmity or illegality in the inquiry already conducted, which culminated in the Inquiry Report dated 22.11.2023, which necessitated the invocation of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Rules. Besides this, as a sequel to this, the Impugned Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority does not indicate tentative reasons of disagreement in relation to the evidence adduced, its assessment and conclusions so drawn. Even, the Disciplinary Authority has also not called upon the petitioner to furnish her representation to such tentative reasons of disagreement, if any. Besides this, as a sequel to this, the Impugned Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority does not indicate tentative reasons of disagreement in relation to the evidence adduced, its assessment and conclusions so drawn. Even, the Disciplinary Authority has also not called upon the petitioner to furnish her representation to such tentative reasons of disagreement, if any. (as none existed on facts in impugned order) PETITIONER PREJUDICED BY NON-COMPLIANCE OF RULE (1) AND/OR SUB RULE (2) OF RULE15 OF CCS (CCA) RULES: (i) In the above backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that apparently, the Disciplinary Authority, in this case, has overlapped two different stages of action, available after receipt of Inquiry report. As an offshoot thereof, two recourses were available with the Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No 2); either to order a further inquiry under sub- rule (1) of Rule 15 subject to the fulfilment of twin preconditions/safeguards i.e. recording reasons in writing, in case the earlier inquiry suffered from any defect (technical or procedural) or any infraction or non-compliance of rule governing inquiry under 14 or/and the law as discussed above and/or by invoking sub rule (2) of Rule 15 in not accepting the Inquiry Report and in such an eventuality, by conveying its tentative reasons of disagreement to the petitioner and by calling upon her to submit a representation thereto before proceeding further in the matter. In the instant case, the Disciplinary Authority has flawed on both counts, firstly, by violating Sub Rule (1) of Rule 15 resulting in prejudice to the petitioner, by depriving her of the grounds and basis as to why and on what basis the inquiry report was erroneous in law necessitating further inquiry and by leading to violations under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 15 resulting in prejudice to the petitioner, by depriving her of the right to know the tentative reasons of disagreement and by depriving her to make representations to the tentative reasons of disagreement if any. Want of due application of mind, from the stage of receipt of Inquiry Report dated 22.11.2023 by the Disciplinary Authority has prejudiced the petitioner vitiating the action, from such stage onwards and therefore, the Impugned Order dated 20.12.2023 [Annexure P-23] turns out to be completely erroneous in law and this order cannot be permitted to operate so as prevent further to prejudice to the petitioner, in the instant case. Accordingly, the order needs to be interfered with and is set-aside. CONTENTION OF RESPONDENTS’ COUNSEL: 19. Though Learned Counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2 has tried to support the Impugned Order dated 20.12.2023 [Annexure P-23], but on query by this Court, Learned Counsel for Respondents, has not been able to point out any reason in Impugned Order which had to be based on the provisions of the Rule. Even, Learned Counsel for Respondents has not been able to answer that in case, the Disciplinary Authority resorted to non- acceptance of the Inquiry Report and intended to disagree with such report then, why the tentative reasons of disagreement were not furnished and why the Inquiry Report was also not supplied and why an opportunity was not given to the petitioner to make representation thereto. Erroneous application and overlapping of two different stages and non- application of mind has led to serious legal infirmity and therefore, the Impugned Order cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny, and the same has to be quashed, so as to prevent any further prejudice to the petitioner due to passing of the impugned order. IN REFERENCE TO QUESTION FORMULATED: 20. In reference to the question formulated, as to whether the Impugned Order dated 20.12.2023 [Annexure P-23], in not accepting the Inquiry Report and in ordering further Inquiry could have been passed by the Respondent No 2-Disciplinary Authority, dehors the intent and object of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 15 of CCS [CCA] Rules, and effect thereof, in facts of this case, is answered in the negative. Pertinently, after the receipt of Inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority has two recourses ; either to remit the case for further inquiry subject to the fulfilment of twin preconditions/safeguards as contemplated under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 15 and/ or to disagree with the report in which event, tentative reasons of disagreement were to be disclosed and response thereto was to be called for as contemplated under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 15 before proceeding further in the matter. In case, the Disciplinary Authority thought of invoking Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 15 of CCS [CCA] Rules then, in such an eventuality the Disciplinary Authority was bound to examine the report and to arrive at a satisfaction regarding any defect (technical or procedural) or infraction or non-compliance of Rule 14 and/or the law and upon its satisfaction, to give reasons in writing pointing any such infirmity before remitting the matter for “further inquiry under Rule 14 of the Rules. These two preconditions/safeguards and are sine qua non before passing an order to remit the matter for further inquiry. Non-recording of reasons deprives a delinquent employee, like the petitioner in the instant case of her right to know the grounds and basis on which the earlier inquiry report suffered from any infirmity and was not accepted necessitating further inquiry. Non-recording of reasons is not an empty formality. Recording of reasons becomes necessary so as to obviate any unfairness, unreasonableness and non-arbitrariness on the part of Disciplinary Authority. Impugned Order does not spell out any defect or infraction or non-compliance of procedure prescribed in Rule 14 and reasons thereto. Further inquiry thus could not be ordered, so as to seek a second inquiry or denovo inquiry so as to supplement the desired result and to arrive at a finding, different from the findings recorded by the later Inquiry Officer [Ms Sheetal Sharma] in her Report dated 22.11.2023. Entrusting further inquiry to the earlier Inquiry Officer [Mr. Pankaj Sharma] on the mere pretext that he had recorded statement of PWs, in itself speaks of inferable suspicion by seeking another report when, the later Inquiry officer [Ms Sheetal Sharma], was available and was not incapacitated to act as such and moreover, when, the impugned order did not point out any defect or infraction or infirmity in the inquiry continued /conducted and the Inquiry Report did not suffer from any infirmity. Further inquiry in the garb of denovo inquiry is impermissible. The Disciplinary Authority cannot exercise his statutory authority in an uncanalised, unbridled manner so as to give rise to misuse of such power and discretion. Exercise of this power and discretion was subject to fulfilment of “twin preconditions/safeguards in sub rule (1) of Rule 15 as discussed hereinabove. Further inquiry in the garb of denovo inquiry is impermissible. The Disciplinary Authority cannot exercise his statutory authority in an uncanalised, unbridled manner so as to give rise to misuse of such power and discretion. Exercise of this power and discretion was subject to fulfilment of “twin preconditions/safeguards in sub rule (1) of Rule 15 as discussed hereinabove. Non fulfilment of twin safeguards shall certainly give rise to the fact that such power and discretion was perverse, by ‘ignoring the relevant and germane considerations based on the twin preconditions /safeguards”. Merely because the Inquiry Report so submitted by the later Inquiry Officer was not to his liking cannot be a ground to order further inquiry, when, the impugned order did not indicate any defect or infirmity in earlier inquiry. Efforts to seek a second or different view of the matter not in consonance with the intent and spirit of further inquiry as contemplated under the Rules. Direction for further inquiry as in this case, cannot be taken to be a conduit for second or denovo inquiry is impermissible. Thus, in this background, the Impugned Order dated 20.12.2023 [Annexure P-23], does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and Rule 15 of CCS [CCA] Rules, as referred to above. Once the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 suffers from serious infirmities then, notwithstanding that even if the Disciplinary Authority asserts to have not accepted the Inquiry Report dated 22.11.2023 and disagreed with the Inquiry Report already submitted then also, as per sub rule (2) of Rule 15 the disciplinary Authority had seriously erred in not conveying its tentative reasons of disagreement {when on facts, none existed} alongwith the Inquiry Report [not officially furnished but it was got under RTI by petitioner] and also by not affording an opportunity to the petitioner to submit representation thereto has been violated, resulting in prejudicing the petitioner on both the counts, as discussed above ; primarily by overlapping two different stages under two different sub rules leading to serious legal infirmity. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 21. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 21. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed, in the following terms :- (i) Impugned Order dated 20.12.2023 [Annexure P-23], passed by Respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority is quashed and set aside ; (ii) Respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority is directed to proceed further in the matter from the stage of receipt of Inquiry Report dated 22.11.2023 [Annexure P-24, Colly] hereinafter, in accordance with law; (iii) Claim of petitioner for promotion as Chief Administrative Officer, based on consideration which has been kept in sealed cover due to pendency of the instant disciplinary proceedings shall be acted upon, subject to the final outcome of pending disciplinary proceedings; (iv) Parties are left to bear their respective costs. 22. In aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition and all pending application(s) if any, shall stand disposed of.